On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 09:49 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
One thing I don't particularly like is some of the naming. To me "vps" doesn't sound particularly generic or logical. I realize that it probably makes perfect sense to you (and I assume it just means "virtual private servers"), but especially if you see patches 1-3 to really be independent of any "actual" virtualization code that is totally generic, I'd actually prefer a less specialized name.
I just did a global s/vps/container/ and it looks pretty reasonable, at
least from my point of view.
Couple of minor naming nitpick questions, though. Is vps/container_info
really what we want to call it? It seems to me to be the basis for a
real "container", without the _info part.
"tsk->owner_container" That makes it sound like a pointer to the "task
owner's container". How about "owning_container"? The "container
owning this task". Or, maybe just "container"?
Any particular reason for the "u32 id" in the vps_info struct as opposed
to one of the more generic types? Do we want to abstract this one in
the same way we do pid_t?
The "host" in "host_container_info" doesn't mean much to me. Though, I
guess it has some context in the UML space. Would "init_container_info"
or "root_container_info" be more descriptive?
Lastly, is this a place for krefs? I don't see a real need for a
destructor yet, but the idea is fresh in my mind.
How does the attached patch look?